Jump to content

Hans Castorp

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. [quote user="The Prisoner"] [quote user="IncH_HigH"]Think you''ll find the shit this country is in is part of a global recession. You may have noticed it on the news.[/quote] Bishops attack ''immoral'' Labour The Bishop of Manchester accused Labour of being beguiled by money Five leading Anglican bishops have attacked the government by calling into question the morality of Labour policy. Bishops of Durham, Winchester, Hulme, Manchester and Carlisle told the Sunday Telegraph the UK was suffering under family breakdown, debt and poverty. Bishop of Manchester the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch said Labour was "beguiled by money" and "morally corrupt". [/quote] Non sequitor. I would like to believe that the present economic situation is purely of this Government''s making, as it would be easier to correct but alas I suspect that that a global phenomenom is just that......Unless both the economist and the FT are wrong and the Mail and the Telegraph are right. I believe that the main thrust of the argument went along the lines of: this government has supported greater moves towards equality of lifestyles for those that do not consider marriage as the core basis of any relationship in terms of the policy of taxation (Bishop of Carlisle also stated that the policies of the Conservatives did not differ, but that would also mean that he had the luck of finding a policy rather than a policy working group). Obviously this is aligned to the Archbishop of Canturbury''s attack on the general thrust of global macro-economic policy of the last three months to expand global demand (as per Keynsian economics), obviously adopting the policy of the early 1980''s would have been the best way forward with so many companies and individuals'' leverage to such levels due solely to a rising housing market. More alarmingly both the Anglican and Catholic Church(s) have rounded on the lifestyles of homosexuals which seems a bit of a side issue tbh in present circumstances. Bishop of Manchester the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch said Labour was "beguiled by money" and "morally corrupt". (Sounds just like the Church of England during the last 20 years and its property portfolio). BTW I am an accountant (only a management one....) and would assume that actually cashflow is somewhat more important than reported profits/published accounts as to whether the business will be solvent. Also, I am not sure what use the working capital is going to be without seeing what they refer to as I assume that other than what is held in the bank, stock and debtors (assuming that any further income streams due from other clubs for player sales (excl player sell on clauses) would be minimal) would be relatively low.
  2. [quote user="Evil Monkey"]Super Wes Irish Wizard... you sir, are a prize prat! Enough said....... [/quote] oh, and a chartered surveyor which makes him derrida and wenger rolled into one (as well as warren buffet because he is ace when putting his knowledge about the markets to good use). Now f@@k off
  3. What about Alf Ramsey? Won the old first division title, quality player in his day and a world cup; heard reports that he is a strict disciplinarian and does not have favourites and the 4-3-3 system might help with the current players that we have..... But that''s a non-starter because he used to manage the scum, oh and he''s dead.
  4. What is your methodology and is this endorsed by other polling organisations?
  5. [quote user="Yellow Rider"] [quote user="Hucks6"]Good post mate.Spot on could not argue w ith you.have been saying this since Glenda Roeder has been here.I am not jumping on bandwaggon the man is cluless down right arragont never has done any good anywhere.There is unrest in the squad the players seem as though they dont want to play for him.My son has just finished in the acadmey at colney so i have seen it at first hand [/quote] There may well be unrest but isn''t that the case at any club who are doing poorly on the field? I have been concerned about what I believed were possibly poor man management skills when he launched in with that verbal tirade against Neil Adams. At the time I was derided with comments like...''Adams had it coming, should know better'' etc. No-one slagged off Roeder then. Why? Simple - we were winning games!! So please answer this question: were you making these savage attacks on Roeder last February when were within 4 points off the play off spots at one stage?   [/quote] Also, can someone outline how many kids go on trial at the Academy, I work with 2 - 3 people whose children have been assessed, and it seems as if the Academy is not quite as exclusive as it appears.
  6. Apologies - he has been out injured and is now at Portsmouth. I felt that his time at Burnley split the opinions of the Fans.
  7. [quote user="TheMarshmallowMonkey"][quote user="Delia S. Tickers"][quote user="John Boubepo"] Burnley Roeder followed his tenure at Watford by taking a season away from the limelight, assuming a back seat role as Chris Waddle''s assistant manager at Burnley. The partnership did not prove to be successful and the pair narrowly avoided steering Burnley into the bottom tier of English football. Only a home victory over Plymouth Argyle on the last day staved off the spectre of relegation. Roeder proved to be both an unpopular and controversial figure to the Burnley fans, hitting a low point when he was reported to have said that star-player Glen Little was "not fit to lace the boots" of manager Chris Waddle. Roeder left his role at Burnley alongside Waddle when the pair departed the club after only a single season in charge. [/quote] A link to the story would be good...... [/quote] It''s from wikipedia. [/quote] I think that this relates to the 97/98 season, and at the time people felt that Glen Little was a luxury that tried too many tricks and gave the ball away far too often. I was at a Burnley vs Bolton game (when Stan Ternant was manager) and Glen was booed for gifting the opposition a goal. The jury was split on Glen Little and I don''t think that he made too much of an impression at Reading. Also, it might be worth sticking to the current period for Roeder mistakes as this is clearly a bit tenuous to say the least. Does anyone know if Roeder has raped Nuns or eaten babies while fighting for the Germans on the Western Front between 1914 - 18?
  8. [quote user="TheMarshmallowMonkey"][quote user="Delia S. Tickers"][quote user="John Boubepo"] Burnley Roeder followed his tenure at Watford by taking a season away from the limelight, assuming a back seat role as Chris Waddle''s assistant manager at Burnley. The partnership did not prove to be successful and the pair narrowly avoided steering Burnley into the bottom tier of English football. Only a home victory over Plymouth Argyle on the last day staved off the spectre of relegation. Roeder proved to be both an unpopular and controversial figure to the Burnley fans, hitting a low point when he was reported to have said that star-player Glen Little was "not fit to lace the boots" of manager Chris Waddle. Roeder left his role at Burnley alongside Waddle when the pair departed the club after only a single season in charge. [/quote] A link to the story would be good...... [/quote] It''s from wikipedia. [/quote] I think that this relates to the 97/98 season, and at the time people felt that Glen Little was a luxury that tried too many tricks and gave the ball away far too often. I was at a Burnley vs Bolton game (when Stan Ternant was manager) and Glen was booed for gifting the opposition a goal. The jury was split on Glen Little and I don''t think that he made too much of an impression at Reading. Also, it might be worth sticking to the current period for Roeder mistakes as this is clearly a bit tenuous to say the least. Does anyone know if Roeder has raped Nuns or eaten babies while fighting for the Germans on the Western Front between 1914 - 18?
  9. [quote user="jbghost"]  His man management and team management would get him sacked in industry. [/quote] I think you will find that in a SME, it will get ignored or labelled as ''his unique management style'', in a larger entity he will be sent on numerous courses to deal with management issues but still nothing will cange.
  10. [quote user="The Butler"] [quote user="Lord Flashheart"]companies are legally obliged to put aside a certain amount of cash per annum incase they need to make redundancies? I know very little about employment law etc. but if someone could illuminate us with some details then perhaps we will see if forcing the board to give Mr Roeder his marching orders is a viable option or not. Cheers. http://www.expatax.nl/images/fired1.gif [/quote] No need at all. [/quote] I believe that a provision can be put aside if a planned restructure/programme is announced (generally requires a sign-off by the auditors) within exceptional costs - otherwise the only other place would be as a contingent liability (IAS 37), but I doubt you could provide anything on the basis that we may have a poor manager.....
  11. Am I being dense in suggesting that there was nothing more to playing Bell on the left as his style of play is incompatible with Semmy''s; Bell did not track back enough (although lost the ball often enough) which meant that our left side was exposed - especially for the last goal. I just wondered whether with Semmy getting forward our right side of defense would have been overly exposed/non-existent against Swansea. Admittedly, several time Pattison did provide cover for Semmy in a way that Bell didn''t (and Croft usually does). I don''t think that it was a tactical masterstroke that imploded for Roeder, nor was it crass stupidity having a left footer on the right and vice-versa - more a case of the nature of the players. Or was it because Roeder had his hands in his pockets? I just don''t know....
  12. In all honestly, how does that account for the previous few seasons; assume that this means that a number of players were just poor rather than under-achieving.
  13. [quote user="mr carra"][quote user="singing canary"] yep most of the big clubs at the top end of the table.. and are still there .. or have money with sheffield wednesday the exception. manchester united dont have many loan players and never had.. and are still there . and we were in much much better situation then in the leauge and had half the debt we have now. [/quote]   The ''half the debt'' thing actually proves nothing.  My mortgage is twice as big as it was in 92/3 but that is because house prices have (way) more than doubled, so although twice as big it is a much smaller percentage of the value of my house than it was then. The club''s debt needs to be considered similarly.  In proportion to the size of  football clubs'' turnover and budgets these days (esp. player wage inflation) our debt now is actually almost certainly  smaller in relation to the amounts going in and out of the club than the one we had then. [/quote] Indeed, I think if you bring forward the debt to today''s prices it would be the equivalent of £25.6m (at a rate of 7%). So a disingenious argument is that the board have in effect reduced the debt in respect of what we held in 1992/93. Also, the big clubs are more widely dispersed across the Premiership rather than a concentration of 4, as it is at the moment. The are adequate claims for incompetence on behalf of the board''s actions, but it is complete revisionism to try to compare two so different era''s.
  14.   So true Hans, so why do we keeping getting the same posts over and over again ? I really do not know (apologies if this is recycling earlier posts).
  15.   So true Hans, so why do we keeping getting the same posts over and over again ? I really do not know (apologies if this is recycling earlier posts).
×
×
  • Create New...